Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

[Seneca]

The ideas of Eugene McCarthy are also new to me, but I think you are somewhat misinterpreting what he is actually saying. He is not trying to replace or criticise the concept of natural selection.
He is criticising the assertion of (neo) Darwinians that most changes in organisms arise because of random mutations.

I find his ideas interesting. He also shows that there even is a big problem with the definition of species (in the biological sense)

Had I come by this a few years ago, I would probably have quickly rejected it. I remember I was horrified when I learned about the existence of hybrid animals (besides the mule). Even not so distant ones like Liger (male Lion x female Tiger) disgusted me. This was probably because it upset my worldview.

About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

I had a similar reaction at first, the hybrid animals frightened/made me feel uncomfortable. I realized as you did that it wasn't that there is actually anything about the hybrid animals that was making me feel that way, but instead the discomfort as my brain grappled with a new idea that changed my understanding in an area.

I suspect this emotional response is big reason humans block out any arguments contrary to what they believe. Like it seems strange often how otherwise intelligent people will cling to idiotic stories they were taught as children, finding the slightest and weakest reasons to dismiss contrary arguments.

Evolution in general is a highly emotionally charged area, because if fully accepted it challenges most peoples beliefs in areas like religion, politics, society, romance, etc. And people mainly believe whatever it is they want to believe.

I agree. I should add that my children were not disgusted or horrified. They were the ones that brought them to my attention. That is why I now think my reaction had more to do with my "education" than with something else.

[dblitz]

Seneca or aa5,

Describe the process that leads to the existence of two different species, with compatible reproductive organs, that can interbreed and create new species.

If you can do that I will happily look into this idea. You described how it felt to contemplate the idea; liberating. Lets be vigilant and preserve that liberty by thinking critically about the alternative in question. If it doesn't measure up, we should move on here.

I proposed the alternative of intelligent design for the members to debunk. My evidence was the information processing systems found in the cell and the fact that no natural process can account for it, while in our experience, intelligence is always associated with information. Pretty solid evidence in my opinion. Not proof, but you would need to debunk it to rule the theory out.

I would like to hear why you don't find this evidence compelling.

[aa5]

I don't know enough about how reproduction happens on a cellular level to know why reproduction can still happen between two species which appear so different. I also don't know about the information processing systems in a cell, although I can believe that there is information processing within the cell.

Overall evolution doesn't mean there is no creator. If true the theory of evolution just means that new varieties of animals and plants can emerge without an actively intervening creator each time. The Origin of Species.

Another thing is you are assuming for your evidence that it takes something of greater intelligence to design an intelligence. Whereas I believe greater complexity can emerge out of simpler complexity.

[Seneca]

Seneca or aa5,

Describe the process that leads to the existence of two different species, with compatible reproductive organs, that can interbreed and create new species.

If you can do that I will happily look into this idea. You described how it felt to contemplate the idea; liberating. Lets be vigilant and preserve that liberty by thinking critically about the alternative in question. If it doesn't measure up, we should move on here.

I proposed the alternative of intelligent design for the members to debunk. My evidence was the information processing systems found in the cell and the fact that no natural process can account for it, while in our experience, intelligence is always associated with intelligence. Pretty solid evidence in my opinion. Not proof, but you would need to debunk it to rule the theory out.

I would like to hear why you don't find this evidence compelling.

I am only reading and thinking about this (the ideas of Eugene McCarthy) for a few days. As far as I can tell, he doesn't try to explain the origin of life or the origin of the oldest organisms. I don't think his work is incompatible with intelligent design. It is more compatible than conventional evolution theory.

For example, based on a different interpretation of fossils, he rejects the idea of Neo-Darwinians that all mammals evolved from a single ancestor. Instead he shows how many different types of animals, that are currently living came from very similar creatures that existed earlier and whose fossils are wrongly attributed to reptiles or "dinosaurs". As an example let's look at fossils of ancient winged creatures called Pterosaurs. Mainstream science thinks these were flying creatures that went completely extinct (even birds didn't evolve from them). Also according to mainstream theory, mammals grew wings that gradually improved until they could fly and thus evolved into bats. Despite that no fossils of intermediate forms are found. Eugene McCarthy questions the claim that these Pterosaurs were reptiles. He argues that they probably were mammals and they "evolved"* into bats. The differences between the 2 kinds are not that big.
Another example: whales.

widely accepted theory claims that whales are descended from a tiny, shrewlike animal, and that the whole transformation required only 10 or 20 million years. ...
"They fail to mention, or perhaps do not realize, that whalelike, whale-sized creatures existed already in the Cretaceous, prior to the Paleocene."

He goes on to explain the similarity between these "extinct reptiles" and modern whales and argues that it is more likely that these types of animals "evolved" into whales.
This is from chapter 9 of his book "forms of life", that PianoRacer linked to in his first post. http://www.macroevolution.net/support-f ... f_life.pdf A shorter version can be found here: http://www.macroevolution.net/mesozoic.html

This is not incompatible with the idea of a creator that has created a limited number of life forms of which some can interbreed. It also isn't incompatible with an other idea, I don't know if it has a name. The idea that the universe and life have always existed. We think that these both have to have a beginning but for me there is no compelling reason why this should be. And perhaps also no evidence, since the big bang is probably a hoax.
*I am using the word evolved between parentheses because it has not the same meaning as we are used to.

[Farcevalue]

The issue that has never been resolved to my satisfaction in any discussion about origin/creation and intelligent or random design is if there is a beginning, what was before the beginning? What was the container of "nothing" that held a place for the universe to manifest? If there is a limit to the universe, what is on the other side? It all comes down to grappling with the idea of infinity, which is incomprehensible to the finite.

[dblitz]

There is no before until time begins.

In my belief there was never nothing, because the Creator was there, but I would say He made the universe out of nothing because nothing like it preexisted it, only the one who decided it would come into being.

[aa5]

Recently a comparison has been made between a tremendously powerful computer and the creator. Say for the sake of argument today's computers have 1 with 10 zeros after it in computations per second and what they can simulate in video games. Well imagine what a computer that has 1 with 100's of zeros after it in computations per second would be able to simulate. In fact, such a computer may be able to simulate our entire universe.

Now the word computer is just our word for explaining such an entity. The ancients maybe described the same general concept as a creator with various attributes.

This explanation might explain how our universe came into being from nothing, but then the next question is how did the place with the creator come into being from nothing.

[Flabbergasted]

This explanation might explain how our universe came into being from nothing,...

Might it?

... but then the next question is how did the place with the creator come into being from nothing.

It sounds a bit like the classic "schoolboy argument": if God created the Universe, who created God? If so, that´s straight from Dawkins' "God Delusion".

Remember that the relative is not caused by the relative (a created being cannot be the cause of Creation); the relative is caused by the Absolute.

Also, "place" (three-dimensional space) is not an absolute, though modern physicists wish to make it so. It is inseparable from matter and therefore co-extensive and co-relative with it.

The Absolute is uncreated and unmanifest; thus, the question of "how the place with the Creator came into being" (if I interpret you correctly) makes no sense.

[Flabbergasted]

A note on "being" and "existence"

The verb "exist" derives from the Latin compound "ex-stare", which may be translated as "to stand outside of".

"Standing outside of" is, as the expression suggests to the intellect, not the same as absolute and eternal being, but rather a state of being which may be considered to have a beginning and an end.

It makes sense to say that the world "exists", but not that God "exists".

God is.

[aa5]

A computer server running a large and dynamic video game today is also outside of the creation. Aka, the computer is not inside the video game. The computer running the video game is also not bound by whatever rules govern the realm within the video game.

The relationship between matter and space I am not convinced either way yet. Which author led you to believe that space is a property of matter?

[patrix]

About the aquatic ape theory: I found a website where it is being criticised http://www.aquaticape.org/. Apparently someone took the effort to verify the sources that were cited by the proponents and found that they were cited incorrectly, and that conflicting data of the same sources was ignored.

Thank you. Very interesting but I find the writers objectiveness and neutrality a bit false however:

Unlike some, I really think of -- and treat -- the AAT/H as a theory

and then

The AAT/H, I hope you've seen, suffers a number of problems that render it incredibly unlikely to be true

http://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html

Can you show where the website is not objective or neutral? Your 2 quotes only show that he seems to have actually considered the theory. That was my conclusion and is why I mentioned this particular website, there are lots of others that just reject the aquatic ape theory without real arguments.

Apologies for a late reply Seneca.
It’s the overall impression I get from reading the site, and the quotes I highlighted stood out in my opinion. I get the general feeling the AAT is non grata in these circles but I’ve noted that David Attenborough have promoted AAT. And since he’s a Nutworker this could be a sign I’m wrong suspecting this is a theory they want to suppress. But I’ve also noted that Attenborough has been heavily criticized by other scientists for promoting the AAT and I’ve not seen much of a rebuttal from his part. So it could be a strawman thing – Have David, who is more of a TV celebrity than a real scientist, promote the theory and then have "real" paleoantropologists take it down (eg. https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... l-thinking ). But maybe I’m just seeing things that aren’t there.

Other things that make the Aquatic Ape Theory compelling to me:
If we don’t want to explain human origin by not explaining it (intelligent design, divine intervention, whatever), we have to try to explain how an animal went from having a normal brain to an exceptionally large one. Sea living mammals like dolphins and killer whales are intelligent so it seems seafood promotes brain development. Our ancestors could have figured out how to catch shellfish and this is what made our brains grow and gradually adopted us to a life near and in the sea.

We are exceptionally good swimmers and divers. We have numerous special abilities in common with sea mammals that enables us to dive http://www.discoveryourdepths.com/about ... physiology

We thrive on a diet high in animal fat. This is becoming common knowledge today and can be seen as proof that we are adopted to a high fat diet like sea mammals with higher cognitive abilities.

Much of our science today is psyence - pseudoscience with the objective to control our behavior. I know from personal experience how harmful a diet low in animal fat can be. When I passed 40 I started to get numerous health problems. Depression, brain fog and chronic fatigue being the most serious. Removing vegetable oils and replacing most of the sugar and starch in my diet with butter and cream has completely turned this around. And there is a rising awareness that a diet low in animal fat promotes diabetes, cancer and dementia to mention a few problems. Connecting our past with the so called humanoid apes can have the objective to make us believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for humans. Grain based diets is a common denominator in highly hierarchical human societies (Egypt, Inca, Rome) and this may also be a reason this is promoted. I suspect many official diet recommendations, general health advice and medicine has the underlying objective to gradually impair our health and ability to think independently, thus making us healthcare customers and easier to control.

[Flabbergasted]

Sea living mammals like dolphins and killer whales are intelligent so it seems seafood promotes brain development. Our ancestors could have figured out how to catch shellfish and this is what made our brains grow ...

All that sushi you´ve been eating has spirited you into la-la land.

[HonestlyNow]

Much of our science today is psyence - pseudoscience with the objective to control our behavior. I know from personal experience how harmful a diet low in animal fat can be. When I passed 40 I started to get numerous health problems. Depression, brain fog and chronic fatigue being the most serious. Removing vegetable oils and replacing most of the sugar and starch in my diet with butter and cream has completely turned this around. And there is a rising awareness that a diet low in animal fat promotes diabetes, cancer and dementia to mention a few problems. Connecting our past with the so called humanoid apes can have the objective to make us believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for humans. Grain based diets is a common denominator in highly hierarchical human societies (Egypt, Inca, Rome) and this may also be a reason this is promoted. I suspect many official diet recommendations, general health advice and medicine has the underlying objective to gradually impair our health and ability to think independently, thus making us healthcare customers and easier to control.

And so you spread your own form of pseudoscience into another topic. Nice. Ignore the fact that we are frugivores, again.

[patrix]

All that sushi you´ve been eating has spirited you into la-la land.

And so you spread your own form of pseudoscience into another topic. Nice. Ignore the fact that we are frugivores, again.

It's interesting to note how a controversial subject diet really is. I don't want to step on any toes, and I am speculating. I think that is pretty necessary to try and get to the bottom of these kind of subjects. And yes, I happen to suspect veganism is a psyop, and seeing these kind of in my opinion emotional out-lashes strengthens that suspicion.

Off topic, but have any of you seen this video? If so what do you make of it?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCE_jUbhleg

[Flabbergasted]

It's interesting to note how a controversial subject diet really is.

I don´t have problems with your observations on human diet (many of which are reasonable enough), nor do I reject the possibility that the WHO/FAO/WTO food pyramid is a scam. I was commenting on your fantastical evolutionary scenarios. After all, the thread is about Darwinism and other flawed origin stories.